Both the Democrats and Republicans are tax and spend politicians. Earmarks should be outlawed. If a Senator or Congressman wants to use tax dollars in their district it should be voted as a new bill. Amendments should also be outlawed that would stop add ons to current bills. However the most reform needs to be tax reform. If every citizen paid 15% tax on everything they earn over 50K, without any deductions, millions would be saved in tax loopholes and the IRS could cut their budget in half and save even more millions. Steve forbes has an excellent plan and should also be considered as a legitimate candidate.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
Have read most of the book called "Fair Tax" and cannot understand why we as a people are not demanding a program like this become current. Abolish the current system and make it fair for all.
I've heard that the current IRS is by far the largest federal employer. So let's implement the "Fair Tax" and offer these employees jobs protecting our borders and ports.
...Like, in Strong-Arm. I am of course not speaking of the people who work for the IRS, but of the people who officiate the dept.
Why, is it that we as a people are not demanding a program like "Fair Tax". Well, I don't know(sarcasm here) -- (but, only slightly) -- I guess for the same reason that we allow the IRS arm of our gov. to double-dip.
Like, why is it, that if I win the Lottery, here in Florida, I have to pay taxes on the total winnings amount. Then, for the year-end income, I have to declare my winnings and pay taxes again?
Ok. winning the Lottery is not such a good example. Like, I guess I wouldn't at that moment care if I had to pay income taxes twice.
But, on some things, my employer and the IRS have got me like this, my mid-year bonus is taxed before the check gets to my wet palm. Come the April deadline, I am figuring my taxes which has my bonus as part of my income.
Right On, showme! Everybody , read Neil Boortz and former Ga congressman John Linder's "Fair Tax" book. Urgent!
Withholding On The Ropes?
U.S. Unable To Prove It’s Not Voluntary
The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down "Operation Stop Withholding."
In the lawsuit, the Government accused WTP of operating an unlawful "abusive tax shelter" in violation of IRC Sections 6700 and 6701, citing the organization's efforts to urge individuals to terminate their W-4 wage and salary withholding agreements.
In response to the lawsuit served on Schulz on May 3, 2024, Schulz filed a motion to have the case dismissed on the ground that Operation Stop Withholding is not only fully protected by the First Amendment (including the Petition clause), it is protected because We The People organization is educating People about the withholding laws as they are currently written and which expressly provide that such agreements are voluntary.
The Government's lawsuit has asked the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting WTP’s efforts to educate Americans about the legal termination of private withholding agreements. WTP's efforts rely on "black letter" law which clearly establishes that Withholding Agreements (W-4s) are voluntary and that a worker can -- at any time -- terminate his W-4 by simply notifying the company that he no longer gives his permission to the company to withhold from his pay.
The Government finds itself in a very tough spot.
On one hand, it is asking the Court to shut the WTP program down, but on the other hand, neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.
What follows are a just a few of the legal citations that the Government has been confronted with and has failed to rebut:
26 CFR § 31.3402 (p)-1 "Voluntary Withholding Agreements". (a) An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding.....shall furnish his employer with Form W -4 (or equivalent) for withholding.
Read it for yourself.
Pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either a company or a worker may terminate the withholding agreement (or its equivalent) at any time, by furnishing a signed, written notice to the other. Read it for yourself.
Pursuant to 26 USC § 3402(p)(3)(A), 5 USC §5517 and 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1), all ordinary American workers have the right to refuse to consent to enter into a voluntary withholding agreement and can voluntarily refuse to have amounts taken from his/her pay for federal and/or state taxes, social security, other governmental insurance programs or welfare programs.
“Protected Individuals” as per 8 USC §1324a cannot be compelled to submit any specific government documents or to disclose a social security number as a condition of being hired by or maintaining their status as a worker. Most American workers qualify as "Protected Individuals" under the law.
The landmark decision of EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting CA3-92-0169T U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, held that companies cannot discriminate against applicants or workers for failure to obtain or disclose a social security number.
No law requires a worker to file a Form W-4 (or its equivalent). In U.S. v. Mobil Oil Co., 82-1 USTC para. 9242, U.S.D.C. ND Tex. Dallas 1981 CA. 3-80-0438-G, the court ruled that an Entity does not even have to send a W-4 Form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a judicial court-ordered summons to do so.
Pursuant to IRC §6041(c), a worker is only required to furnish a name and address upon demand of a company for whom he seeks to work. No social security number is required by statute.
Building upon a plethora of false statements, pitiful hyperbole, factual omissions and defective (and vindictive) claims of lawful authority, the Government has attempted to paint WTP as a "promoter" of an illegal tax fraud "scheme" without ever specifically identifying any false speech made by WTP, and without addressing the very laws WTP has relied upon -- and which irrefutably establish that wage and salary withholding is voluntary.
Nowhere in its pleadings does the Government directly confront the voluntary nature of the withholding laws cited by WTP even though withholding is the central issue before the court.
Indeed, beyond the compelling judicial and constitutional drama unfolding as the landmark Right to Petition lawsuit continues its certain path to the Supreme Court, the Government may have done itself great harm by pursing a "6700" lawsuit against WTP.
As a result of accusing WTP of activity expressly protected by the Constitution and the lesser laws of the nation, it has risked widespread exposure in the public domain of the very information it seeks to censor.
It is no miracle that the United States cannot -- by any law -- force average workers to submit to mandatory withholding. To do so would be to require them to withhold monies for taxes, which by the Constitution and U.S. law, CANNOT BE IMPOSED UPON ORDINARY AMERICANS.
The fact that one's signature is required to execute a W-4 withholding agreement is simple evidence of this truth that, until recently, has remained well-obscured within the complexity of the tax code.
It is beyond time that our government confront a difficult political question that our organization has asked repeatedly over numerous years:
Do our elected leaders and guardians of the Rule of Law move with deliberation toward an orderly transition of a replacement for our Constitutionally-abusive tax system, or do they risk a chaotic, systemic collapse of the government funding mechanism (or even worse) because of the growing, yet unstoppable, awakening of the public consciousness regarding the truth about our nation's tax laws?
It is indeed not ironic that such a possibility awaits our nation, and may one day come to pass, inadvertently perhaps, because of one IRS prosecution too many.
The truth is out there and it's not going away.
History of the "6700" Lawsuit:
The United States served its Complaint on May 3, 2024, charging Schulz with promoting an abusive tax shelter in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code.
On May 23rd, Schulz and WTP filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under 6700 and under the First Amendment’s Petition for Redress and Free Speech clauses. Also filed were three Declarations by Schulz.
On June 18th, the United States filed its Response and its Statement of Material Facts.
On July 16th, Schulz and WTP filed their Reply, including six more Declarations by Schulz.
For those not familiar with WTP’s Operation Stop Withholding here are the highlights:
On March 15, 2024, by letter, Schulz Petitioned the Government for a Redress of Grievances relating to the forced withholding and diversion of workers’ pay. The theme of the Petition for Redress was the black letter law showing that withholding was voluntary, that any worker could legally terminate an existing withholding certificate (W-4) by simply notifying the company, in writing, that the worker did not want to continue having his pay withheld, and that a worker did not have to provide the company with a Social Security number.
Enclosed with Schulz’s March 15, 2024 letter was a Blue Folder with documentation supporting the Petition for Redress, and Forms for workers to use to legally terminate withholding.
In the March 15 letter, Schulz notified the United States that he would begin to instruct workers on how to legally terminate withholding unless the United States were to tell him his interpretation of the law was wrong.
Hearing no objection, Schulz embarked on his schedule of 37 meetings around the country, handing out 3500 copies of the Blue Folders (at no cost) to people in attendance at those meetings. The materials comprising the Operation Stop Withholding "Blue Folder" are still available (for free) on the WTP website.
The day before he left on his trip, the IRS sent Schulz a letter saying, in effect, “We have reviewed certain materials and have decided to investigate you for promoting an abusive tax shelter, in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code. You are asked to meet with us and to bring your books and records.”
Thus, under color of an “official” 6700 investigation of Schulz and the WTP organization, the IRS could now get away with almost anything, including harassing Schulz and the organization to death, or at least to the point where we could not continue with our process of Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances relating to withholding or anything else.
Schulz told the IRS, in effect, “No answers, No records.” The IRS then served a Summons on Schulz for the books and records. Schulz sued the IRS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Schulz I, that Schulz did not have to respond to the Summons without a court order and if the IRS wanted the information it would have to bring Schulz to court to get it.
The IRS and DOJ then filed a subsequent motion asking the U.S.Court of Appeals to modify its decision claiming it would make it harder for the Government to collect taxes. In Schulz II, the Court sternly denied the motion again holding that taxpayers enjoy the protection of broad Due Process Rights with regard to all forms of IRS administrative actions.
Within weeks of the decision in Schulz II, the IRS began serving a series of third-party summonses against Schulz, rather than bring Schulz to Court to enforce the original Summons. Each third-party summons has resulted in a new lawsuit by Schulz against the IRS.
In November, 2024 the IRS felt the teeth of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Schulz II when it served an administrative Summons on a New York bank demanding Schulz's personal bank records. Read our 11/8/06 web article.
After Schulz filed a lawsuit against the IRS to quash the Summons, on November 6th a federal judge issued an injunctive order enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the bank Summons. During pre-trial pleadings, the primary investigator for the IRS was caught perjuring herself to the District Court regarding the alleged basis for issuing the Summons. This case is currently awaiting the disposition of that Court.
Immediately following the March 30, 2024 “V” demonstration outside the White House (video) and its coverage by the Washington Post, the United States filed the "6700" civil injunction lawsuit against Schulz and the WTP organizations.
Hello folks. Here's the way I see it. We need tax reform. Any form of income tax is ambiguous, subject to the whims of legislators, and an ineffective vehicle for the government to raise revenues. Does the gov't need to raise revenues in order to operate: Yes. Is some form of taxation required to generate those revenues: Yes. Ross Perot, being a man of practical application and straight forwardness, had the best ideas regarding taxation. However, his delivery was too complicated for most citizens and the concept was lost on the less educated who were more easily swayed by both Democratic and Republican rhetoric. It was shameful the way the two big parties successfully discredited Perot's attempts at tax reform.
The answer, flat rate SALES tax. Not income tax of any form. My opinion is based on couple observations:
- The average citizen pays a combined federal, state, and local sales tax of about 26% (high side of the average). If I used a weighted scale, the tax we pay on gas alone could raise that to almost 32%!!
- NO ONE can avoid sales tax, without stealing of course. Not illegal immigrants, not drug dealers, not your Enron-type executives, no one. We all need stuff and we all have to buy it to get it (execptions do apply, but they are fractional). We all know that the more people earn, the more they buy.
I know this is an over-simplified appproach, but this should be addressed. I'm sure there should be some tax rules for businesses and a multitude of other scenerios, but they should also revolve around sales tax. Why, because any business has to buy whatever it is they need to turn a profit. Service industries included. They buy help right?
I would really love to hear from other folks about this idea. Thanks,
Track me back in the Shoutbox and you will find several passes at this. I go one step further... a transaction tax with no pass through on trades of any kind and no exceptions. Essential not taxing people, taxing the circulation of capital assests(including cash/cash equivalents). It is not intended to reduce the revenue as a percent of GDP but by including the resale and gift markets in the assests being traded and taxed. That makes the transaction tax a much lower rate than just a sales tax, but it greatest assest is that it completely removes social engineering from revenue collect and places social justices issues squarely on the expenditure side and out in the open.
Very tough to get there as I have discussed before, but it seems the best model to work toward IMO.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I'm not totally opposed to such a plan, but the argument against it is that it is a regressive tax. Those in the lower class are going to end up spending a greater proportion of their income than those in the higher class. It might be an effective part of tax overhaul, but I don't think it could be the only tax. I think the income tax is too high, but I think a flat, low income tax rate coupled with a flat sales tax, could offset some of the complaints against the flat sales tax, while still generating good amounts of revenue. Just food for thought.
Don't forget several key points in the Fair Tax bill.Everybody gets a rebate(amount based on family size) every month to cover basic necessities of life.You are only taxed on what you purchase at the retail level,which means you control what you spend in taxes.The notion that this somehow hurts low income families is just not true.If anything it helps them as well as all income classes.We need to get rid of any type of income tax at all.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to this plan. I'm just trying to figure out how we could counter arguments against it. Technically, it does classify as a regressive tax, which means it places more burden on the lower class. Yeah, the tax is the same for everyone, but if you make 6 million dollars a year, you might only spend $500,000 that year, or 1/12th of your income. So you would be taxed a flat rate on 1/12th of your income. Now, someone who makes $20,000 dollars a year might have to spend a third of their income, or about $7000, just to survive. It just seems to me, that a tax like this, would prevent lower wage earners from purchasing products. The rebate system, if it could be implemented fairly, would counter the regressive nature of this tax. From what I can tell, the rebate covers up to a certain extent of expenses, though, not necessarily basic necessities, which I think is a better way to approach the rebate system.
Just for the sake of argument, what is it that makes you so opposed to the income tax? I honestly just want to know.
As a final comment, I don't know if the government could handle this kind of tax revision. In the short term, it would cut government revenues a good chunk which, while already running a deficit and with a burgeoning debt, might put even more penny pinching pressure on the government. It needs that, but I don't know if this would be the way to go about doing it.
For anyone who is interested, this is a dated, but good source on Flat Tax or Flat Sales Tax: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1134.cfm
Just exempt food and medicine, besides, I'm more concerned about making it fair for the working middle class, we're the ones who get the shaft. The rich can afford it and the poor get government help. What about what's fair for us?
Please read "Fairtax". Thanks
i hate to be the negative commenter of the group, but i had to mention this on another strain also; what about all the jobs that currently revolve around the income tax? is our tax code crazy: yes! could our gov't possibly create more efficient revenue: yes! would other forms of taxation offer a fairer deal to all classes: yes! but what about the economics of the whole thing? we'll suddenly have millions of unemployed accountants, tax planners, and dozens of other jobs as financial firms feel the ripple effect of one of the largest industries in our economy. also, how will the upper class corporations change their budgets in reaction to a sudden hike in taxes? the demand for pre-retail products could plummet as companies roll back spending. the supply of finished goods could decrease and prices could spike as producers cut back. such a large and sudden change to the way our economy works not could, but WOULD, be catastrophic; i'm talking on the scale of the great depression. again, not that all of these ideas are bad (i commented on another strain saying i liked this idea, but now i've had the chance to think about it) but, the effects would likely create a situation far from the equality and opportunity they originally sought to create.
Such a relevant point, as the primary concern of enacting a National Sales Tax would be what to do with the millions of IRS employees, not to mention the periphery corporations and individuals who make their entire living off of the income tax system. Firstly, the IRS would not necessarily be abolished, as many would hope. Imagine the great task of instituting a National Sales Tax system at every cash register in the country, and ensuring compliance! However, the size of the institution would be cut greatly. Personally, I believe that we need to employ these economically savvy people in a position to re-orient the other sectors of our economy (reverse the debts of government, the trade deficit, and the like). Put that offer out there to those unemployed by the drastic reductions of the IRS, and let the rest go to the free market. Businesses will always need accountants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whatever it is I do, I do it for the People"
progressivepanther.blogspot.com
The idea of not taxing anybody at all is interesting, though impractical in the sense of making government revenue impossible, and therefore unfortunatly forcing us to let the Chinese and Saudis continue to pick up our foreign debt. Personally, being economically liberal, I used to be opposed to the concept of a national sales tax. However, the idea of a 23% flat sales tax to all transactions carried out in the U.S. present several new interesting opportunities for revenue. You tax all tourists, all workers with visas (or without as the case may be), tax evasion is now an impossibility, and the millions each year that are wasted on a tax code now in excess of 68,000 (? I believe) pages go to the public good. The CATO institute estimated a pool of $4 trillion in revenue to the federal government as opposed to the $660 some billion it recieves now with an income tax. With that kind of money, the kinds of things government could do for the people...
All that concerns me is that a consumption or sales tax would not hit disproportionally on the underpriviliged by forcing them to pay taxes on the bare necessities for their lives. So, the answer is simple. A tax 'allowance' for the most impoverished to cover basic needs up to a specific dollar amount each year. You could even limit this as the years go on if the person is able to work but seems to show no particular progress. But don't force 23% on a single parent above the poverty line by mere inches for groceries. Your thoughts?
"Whatever it is I do, I do it for the People"
progressivepanther.blogspot.com
23% sounds high, but if you eliminate all other taxes I guess it wouldn't be terrible. also, maybe a graduated allowance system would fit your suggestion; smaller and smaller 'tax allowances' as need decreases and income rises. good thought, its worth thinking about!
A National Sales Tax is a great idea, but only in conjunction with other forms of revenue and only as a secondary measure. When combined with other forms of revenue, the sales tax rate can be lowered. As well, those other forms of revenue don't have to be/shouldn't be taxation. Check out my blog,
http://alternativerevenuesources.blogspot.com
We COULD admit that the Income Tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in more ways than one. It was created by the 16th Amendment which was NEVER RATIFIED by the States. It is an "un-apportioned direct tax" in direct VIOLATION of the Constitution. Forcing people to file a 1040 is a direct violation of their 4th Amendment Rights and possibly their 5th Amendment Rights. There is NO LAW requiring you to pay an income tax...period.
The only function of the "income tax" is to pay interest to the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank. According to the Constitution only CONGRESS has the right to regulate the money supply of the USA...NOT a Private Foreign Bank (aka the Federal Reserve).
So let's abolish the Federal Reserve and abandon the Income Tax altogether.
Don't worry you already pay Road Taxes, Gas Taxes, Telephone Taxes (3 different ones), Sales Taxes, Property Taxes...etc etc etc so the government wont go broke or stop providing services. We will just stop paying INTEREST on OUR MONEY which we now borrow from a Private Bank.
Simply put, our government would not be able to function without an income tax, unless it was replaced with an effective tax. Yeah, the government is bloated, but it isn't so bloated that you can take away almost 35% of its revenue and still expect it to function. Realistically speaking, if the income tax were just abolished, the government would have to cut massive amounts of spending.
That being said, I guess I have a proposal. We all complain about an income tax, but in reality, it hurts very few of us for the benefit it brings. How about a compromise like this: Establish an flat income tax rate for individuals making over $70,000 and couples making more than $110,000. Set the rate at something reasonable, such as 5-8.5%. This isn't a huge amount. Then, institute a FairTax like system on all final transactions, not including the sale of food or medicine. This would lower the overall rate of a flat sales tax, allowing it to be closer to the low teens, maybe even 10%. It would also keep the poor from being burdened by the system. There could be deductions given for certain groups, such as students and parents, which would make it easier for them.
I think its a pretty decent system. Would like some feedback.
Like I said we already pay taxes for our "services". How about this idea? We abolish the UNCONSTITUTIONAL STANDING ARMY!!! The founders were very much against the US having a standing army (military) knowing that it wouldn't just be standing around and that LIKE THE BRITISH EMPIRE in 1776 it would be used for "empire building". THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about...keeping the ability of AMERICAN'S to DEFEND their country from foreign invasion. The United States NEVER had a standing Army until WWI and we haven't been able to get rid of it since. The military is the MAIN debt producing tool of the United States...it serves only the interests of the PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK by forcing ME and YOU to borrow more and more money. Lose the military and there will be plenty of money to go around...maybe your wife can even quit her job.
not that I disagree with your ideas about over-spending on the military, but you had better have a good idea on how to employ the millions of military workers and those workers indirectly employed by the military (factory workers, contractors). the gov't is the #1 consumer in our economy. and you said it yourself, the gov't spends most of its money on the military. so, if you suddenly eliminate the largest chunk of consumer demand in the American economy, what exactly do think is going to happen. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but our country is hooked on the military like a crackhead on dope; even if we wanted to, we couldn't stop using.
Well with all that capital freed up there would be an excess and plenty to go around to start new businesses that actually PRODUCE something other than death. Many economists are advocating a productivity gain distribution which would give every American $12,500. The only ones benefiting now from the monumental gains in productivity over the last 100 years are the Banks and "the golden parachute" bunch (i.e. CEOs) when it is the workers that make their multi billion dollar incomes possible. The system is broken and only a severe overhaul will bring it back to its potential for the good of ALL Americans.
Check out this article by a REPUBLICAN economist...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/?context=va&aid=6401
As the world is, we could not simply get rid of our military. Scale it back considerably? Yes. Eliminate it? No. We make too much money supplying weapons and military technology to other countries. If we stopped supplying our own country with those weapons, we would lose a huge portion of our exports, which are too low already.
Now, that all being said, I could see a phased dissolution of much of our military. Over a span of, lets say, 25 years, we go from a standing army of 300,000 to a standing army of 65-80,000. We would still have a military, able to help with various problems both domestically and abroad, while cutting a huge amount of its budget. I don't know if my number for our current standing army is right, but the point stands. The army could be smaller.
Even if we fully got rid of the military, though, we need to raise tax money, even if just for the short term, in order to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and get rid of some of the clutter in the Federal government. As the old saying goes, you've gotta spend money to make money. This would just be our way of spending money, so we could make more money later.
As of right now we have more than 750 military bases in 115 countries and a total military of more than 2 MILLION people. That isn't counting the "private contractors" (of which there are 165,000 in Iraq right now) that also dip into our pockets.
Do you think perhaps all those military bases in foreign countries has something to do with the worldwide hostility towards US?
The idea that WE should subsidize an industry that serves NO PURPOSE other than Death and Destruction is ABSURD. If you know your history then you know that an over sized and overextended military were the primary reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire...they went broke trying to keep the world under their thumb by force. Same thing for the fascist governments of the last century. Time to move on and advance our thinking a little don't you think.
Surely we have more imagination than to think that exporting death machines is the only way to "grow" our economy.
If you read the whole post, I'm basically agreeing with what you are saying. I never said we need to 'grow' our economy by selling weapons. All I said was that if you take away that industry, it would put a serious dent in our international exports, so if we did do something like that, it should be a slow and steady withdrawal from the market.
Yeah, my numbers were low, but my statement stands. I think we should lower our standing military to 60 to 80,000, which is basically in agreement with you. Remember, when I was speaking, I was speaking of standing military. Don't forget about all the troops that have been called up from reserves and the National Guard. They count as standing now, but they aren't always.
As for the weapons industry, to say that the whole weapons industry is about nothing other than death is ridiculous. Like it our not, our country (and others) needs weapons to protect itself from aggressors. Is the weapons industry a two-headed snake that sometimes bites us just as hard as our enemies? Absolutely. Until the rest of the world decides to lay down their weapons and work towards peaceful conflict resolution, the U.S. will always maintain a weapons industry.
Taxation commences as a solution to a problem, but then becomes a problem. The reason taxation becomes a problem is that Congress starts to fund things, everything from Red Tide research to Homeland Security firetrucks to bridges to nowhere. A flat tax on consumption and financial transactions may well finally be fairest to us all. I cannot get my mind off the spending side, though. If we spend eight times as much on our military as whomever is in second place, the only logical question is Why? Surely revenue sharing is a governmental device to insulate the taxer from the taxpayer and bribe local and state governments to play their part as co-conspirators. I swear I will vote for the first sane Congressional candidate who has as a slogan, "I will NOT bring home the bacon!"
Harrumph!
A national sales tax or a value added tax are counterproductive. They both add a layer (tax collection and recordkeeping)to a business model and causes business owner to increase prices to maintain a margin of profit that makes being in business worthwhile. Hourly wages would also need to incease so lower and middle income people could afford goods. A rebate sounds great until you need to float your costs until rebate check arrives. Eastern European countries (Croatia, Georgia area) have had a flat tax for many years and also have cut taxes because of the influx of taxes is much higher than expected as well as full employment. Meanwhile Western European countries (France, Germany etc.) have a value added tax and economies are stagnant and unemployment is out of control. If every one in America paid taxes on every dollar over A minimum say around 40k most middle class families would get a break and lower income would still pay nothing. Our current system is out of control and if you have a good accountant you could make millions a year and pay less taxes than the average lower income family.
The more "fair" we've tried to make our income tax, the more unfair it has become to everyone. The only fair way to tax income is to.....tax it equally. It's not called a "lifestyle tax" or "wealth tax". It's supposed to be an income tax, but it certainly isn't recognizable as such.
A Democrat seeks complex solution to simple problems
A Republican seeks simple solutions to complex problems
A reasonable person seeks simple solutions for solvable problems
There seems to be some confusion between the "fair tax" which is a national sales tax, a value added tax which is added on every time something is sold starting with the raw materials and a flat icome tax similar to the Pennsylvania income tax which is 3% with almost no deduction.
Below is my comment and an idea.
A national sales tax or a value added tax is counterproductive. They both add a layer (tax collection and recordkeeping)to a business model and causes a business owner to increase prices to maintain a margin of profit that makes being in business worthwhile. Increased prices would cause hourly wages to incease so lower and middle income people could afford goods. A rebate sounds great until you need to float your costs until rebate check arrives. Eastern European countries (Croatia, Georgia area) have had a flat tax for many years and also have cut taxes because of the influx of taxes is much higher than expected as well as full employment. Meanwhile Western European countries (France, Germany etc.) have a value added tax and economies are stagnant and unemployment is out of control. If every one in America paid taxes on every dollar over a minimum say around 40k most middle class families would get a break and lower income would still pay nothing. Our current system is out of control and if you have a good accountant you could make millions a year and pay less taxes than the average lower income family. Under a flat tax (at 15% tax rate)scenario a family that makes 60K a year ( with no deductions)would pay $3000 in taxes (40K-60K= 20K taxable). family that makes $500K would pay $69000 in taxes (500k-40k=460K taxable). I consider that a lot more fair than asales tax.
One of your points is easy to answer:
A rebate sounds great until you need to float your costs until rebate check arrives.
It can be unswered by sending rebates at the beginning of the year, before family even started to pay taxes by shopping for food and cloths. Anyway, it is a fixed amount.
With your stance against a sales tax you seem to be unfavorable to regressive taxation (as was Adam Smith, you are in good standing). I am curious if you have a problem with the regressive nature of the flat tax you propose? It would take more of the disposable income of the lower income earners in your model, and the lack of deductions might cut into their incentive to buy a home. I am not saying that those are necessrily bad, but I just wonder if you have considered these effects.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
Thats where the bit about no income tax for families (with children, I assume) making under $40,000 a year.
I am torn between which tax I would prefer (I would prefer none, but taxes are a necessary evil). A flat tax with no deduction is quite simple, but it still allows for dishonesty and cheating. A set percentage of tax would keep things even for all, with the poor paying nothing. A National Sales Tax would also be quite fair and it would also force the criminals, corrupt and the so called big business and rich to pony up their fair share. Afterall, everyone has to buy necessities which of course would be taxed. With the National Sales Tax the IRS would only have to monitor the collectors, a much smaller number of entities than millions of individual Americans having to file each year.
If we return ALL the troops we have overseas and shut down the bases we will save enough money to eliminate the income tax. Elimination of the illegal income tax and the den of thieves that is the Federal Reserve will leave much more money in the hands of the people who earned it. Elimination of all unconstitutional departments of the Federal gov't will free up more money. The repeal of NAFTA, GATT and nipping the NAU in the bud along with tariffs on imports will return out manufacturing base and create many jobs. Emptying the prisons of people who are in there for petty crimes like possession of marijuana will provide thousands of workers for the jobs of illegal immigrants. The unemployed gov't employees that will result in the elimination of unconstitutional gov't departments will be another source of labor.
The Revoulution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and get to keep what you earn!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855
THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation
Posted: July 26, 2024
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2024 WorldNetDaily.com
The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.
"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.
And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.
"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.
The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.
The logo for the new Truth Attack campaign against income taxes
Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.
If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.
"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.
For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2024 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2024 and 2024. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.
But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.
"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."
Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."
Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.
He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.
He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.
"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"
His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."
He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."
He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.
"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."
"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."
While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.
"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.
He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.
"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.
The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and get a free country!
Fair Tax and Sales Tax, as far as I understood, tax only retail transactions and not even all of them. For example, doctor's fees will be exempted from taxation.
It is less than ¼ of the financial transactions in the economy.
The huge loopholes are obvious.
All one has to do to avoid paying tax is either lobby Congress for being in the same category of nontaxable retail/service industries as doctors and hospitals, or to hide essentially retail transactions inside the production cycle. For example, they can pay half of the salary with prepaid VISA debit cards and claim it as a business cost.
These actions of “those who can” will further erode the tax base. Shrinking tax base will cause higher tax rate in ordinary folks’ tax receipts. And when you and mum-and-pap businesses will see tax as 50% of the receipt at cash register, they will demand “big and scary” IRS to be re-established to investigate various transactions by comparing observed live style with income claimed.
The same intrusive power will be back in couple years.
The only way to get rid of it is to eliminate loopholes. And theoretically, it can be done by taxing every single financial transaction in the economy. Tax rate will be really small (under 5%), the way to avoid tax would be to use barter and to loose such inefficient business to competitors. The complete tax code will take half a page literaly. And tax will be collected by Social Security Administration (by Social Security Numbers or Tax ID) as their side job, because they maintain ID numbers and addresses already. Social Security Administration will send the same dollar amount per Social Security Number as refund to maintain the minimal lifestyle for the poor at the beginning of each tax year.
Unfortunately, I see no practical way to implement such tax code, due to forces which live of the complexity of the Tax Code and/or use loopholes heavily.
Case in point: George Soros, who pushes for tax rate increase, while keeping his own money offshore, to be safe from any consequences of such increase.
Federal Income Tax
All Residents of the United States of America, Citizens or Individuals having income from the United States; Shall be subject to a Federal Income Tax of Fifteen Percent (15%) of income. The First Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) may be deducted from the individuals income if so desired.
There are NO other Federal Income Tax Deductions.
You want to tax individuals on their Gross Income? You have got to be insane.
John Stossel addresses Fair Tax Rally in Columbia, SC
Individuals should be taxed on their net income, at no more than 10 percent (10%), with a $40,0000 deductible.
Anything more than that and we will just be paying the lobbyists and special interest anyway.
ex animo
davidfarrar